Essay Abstract

The essay pinpoints a hitherto seemingly unknown or neglected very simple fundamental physical causal relation that governs the chain of events comprising all - from the absolutely smallest to the absolutely largestВ phenomenon in the universe. This relationship is expressed as follows: When objects, moving randomly in a limitless unchanged volume, aggregte to form increasingly larger and thereby fewer lumps, the mean distance between the centres of 2 neighbouring lumps (d) at a given occasion will equal: The в€›of half the sum of the number of the original objects (a) in the two lumps Г-- the mean distance between those original objects (b) before the onset of the aggregation. d = в€› ВЅ a Г-- b Or expressed in words: When, in a limitless unchanged volume, randomly moving and evenly distributed objects*В aggregate to form increasingly larger and thereby fewer lumps, each lump will beВ surrounded by an empty volume that equals the sum of the empty volumes that surroundedВ the constituents of each lump before the onset of the aggregation, minus the volume occupied by the lump itself.В  This relationship has a consequence:В  Each lump will recede from all other lumps, except those neighbouring lumps that areВ participating in the aggregation into a still larger lump. This consequence in turn has a profound importance when interpreting observations of the movements of celestial bodies and assemblies such as galaxies and clusters of galaxies.

Author Bio

The author is one of many scientifically enlightened laymen with professions other than scientific, now since some years enjoying a retirement that has given him time to engross in astrophysical issues as far as his basic knowledges in mathematics and physics as a high school graduate way back in 1955 allows. In the present days of dismissives of scientific findings he is expecting the scientific community to act otherwise and not dismiss this attempt at communicating with science and that the essence of this essay will be taken seriously and evaluated to be proven false or true.

Download Essay PDF File

5 days later

Dear Jan-Axel Nyman,

Please excuse me for I have no intention of disparaging in any way any part of your essay.

I merely wish to point out that "Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." Albert Einstein (1879 - 1955) Physicist & Nobel Laureate.

Only nature could produce a reality so simple, a single cell amoeba could deal with it.

The real Universe must consist only of one unified visible infinite physical surface occurring in one infinite dimension, that am always illuminated by infinite non-surface light.

A more detailed explanation of natural reality can be found in my essay, SCORE ONE FOR SIMPLICITY. I do hope that you will read my essay and perhaps comment on its merit.

Joe Fisher, Realist

Nice essay Dear Nyman,

Your question is nice...."Is there a hitherto seemingly unknown or neglected very simple fundamental physical causal relation that governs the chain of events comprising all - from the absolutely smallest to the absolutely largest phenomenon in the universe?"

Your ideas and thinking are excellent but I think you are considering only expanding Universe model only. There are 60 percent of Galaxies in the Universe which are Blue shifted and Quasars etc; you should consider them also.....

For your information Dynamic Universe model is totally based on experimental results. Here in Dynamic Universe Model Space is Space and time is time in cosmology level or in any level. In the classical general relativity, space and time are convertible in to each other.

Many papers and books on Dynamic Universe Model were published by the author on unsolved problems of present day Physics, for example 'Absolute Rest frame of reference is not necessary' (1994) , 'Multiple bending of light ray can create many images for one Galaxy: in our dynamic universe', About "SITA" simulations, 'Missing mass in Galaxy is NOT required', "New mathematics tensors without Differential and Integral equations", "Information, Reality and Relics of Cosmic Microwave Background", "Dynamic Universe Model explains the Discrepancies of Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Observations.", in 2015 'Explaining Formation of Astronomical Jets Using Dynamic Universe Model, 'Explaining Pioneer anomaly', 'Explaining Near luminal velocities in Astronomical jets', 'Observation of super luminal neutrinos', 'Process of quenching in Galaxies due to formation of hole at the center of Galaxy, as its central densemass dries up', "Dynamic Universe Model Predicts the Trajectory of New Horizons Satellite Going to Pluto" etc., are some more papers from the Dynamic Universe model. Four Books also were published. Book1 shows Dynamic Universe Model is singularity free and body to collision free, Book 2, and Book 3 are explanation of equations of Dynamic Universe model. Book 4 deals about prediction and finding of Blue shifted Galaxies in the universe.

With axioms like... No Isotropy; No Homogeneity; No Space-time continuum; Non-uniform density of matter(Universe is lumpy); No singularities; No collisions between bodies; No Blackholes; No warm holes; No Bigbang; No repulsion between distant Galaxies; Non-empty Universe; No imaginary or negative time axis; No imaginary X, Y, Z axes; No differential and Integral Equations mathematically; No General Relativity and Model does not reduce to General Relativity on any condition; No Creation of matter like Bigbang or steady-state models; No many mini Bigbangs; No Missing Mass; No Dark matter; No Dark energy; No Bigbang generated CMB detected; No Multi-verses etc.

Many predictions of Dynamic Universe Model came true, like Blue shifted Galaxies and no dark matter. Dynamic Universe Model gave many results otherwise difficult to explain

Have a look at my essay on Dynamic Universe Model and its blog also where all my books and papers are available for free downloading...

http://vaksdynamicuniversemodel.blogspot.in/

Best wishes to your essay.

For your blessings please................

=snp. gupta

Dear Jan-Axel Nyman,

Will you please explain me your title'Could the simple equation d = в€› ВЅ a Г-- b

turn astrophysics upside down?'to match your essay...and please tell me how you got that mathematical relation if you didn't find to reference it....if you really want to see such upside down in physics then please read my essay...i have written in a language that a genuine student could understand it.

    Dear Mr. Bishal Banjara.

    Thank you for your comment.

    Having read your essay which I must admit was far too advanced for my limited knowledge of mathematics and physics, I will try to explain the reasoning behind the equation d = в€› ВЅ a Г-- b.

    The illustrations on page 2 of my essay show how freely moving and randomly dispersed objects aggregate to lumps and that the number of lumps become fewer than the predecessing objects and consequently the distance between each lump is larger than the distance between each object.

    In other words the empty volume that surrounds a lump is twice as large as the volume that surrounded one object, assuming that each lump has been formed by the merger of two objects. If you imagine the empty volumes as cubes surrounding the objects it is very easy to deduce the equation d = в€› ВЅ a Г-- b. That is the way I did it, but I am by no means a skilled mathematician so this deduction might be errounous, but so far no one has been able to show me that I am wrong. I wouldn't mind if you could smash my thesis to pieces, because that would be a relief from the prospect that my thesis is true with all its implications.

    How does my essay and its headline relate to the theme of the contest?

    First, I can not imagine a simpler and more mindless mathematical expression than d = в€› ВЅ a Г-- b.

    Secondly if the mathematical description of this physical relationship is correct and that it is applicable also in the cosmological reality, it certainly will give rise to changed aims and intentions related to the description of the development of our universe, because the interpretation of all observational data regarding the movements of the galaxies must be reassessed regarding that almost all of the trillions of galaxies have gone through mergers, with the consequense that the galaxies recede from each other without any need of an expanding universe.

    And as the concept of an expanding universe is based solely on observations made by Hubble and his sucessors on the assumption that the observed galaxies have not experienced any mergers (or if, this has been considered insignificant in the context), the outcome of such a reassessment could be that either our universe is not expanding at all, or expanding at a much lower rate than the current estimate, otherwise it would have been impossible for the observed galaxy mergers to take place.

    When I try to evaluate scientific findings in the realm of physics I only accept deductions based on observations and experimental verification of mathematical predictions. All other pretentions I regard as speculations, however imaginative and interesting they are. But the more likely it seems that they could be observationally and experimentally verified I try to follow their progress.

    The essence of my essay is a hypotheises that is based on observations as well as mathematics and written sentence that enables it to be proven false or true according to the scientific method.

    My hope is that someone with deeper knowledge of mathematics and physics than mine would consider it worth while to spend some time to evaluate the relevance of the physical causal relation described by the equation d = в€› ВЅ a Г-- b.

    5 days later

    Good morning Jan-Axel Nyman -

    You provide an interesting, if unusual discussion. It is not clear in your essay what acts upon the objects to form the lumps as you discuss. You might want to look at entropy and, more recently, the concept of dissipative adaptation, as suggesting mechanisms by which component objects within a system are induced to form lumps. These are topics I deal with in my essay (as do other authors).

    Regards - George Gantz

      Dear George Gantz,

      nice to enter a conversation with another grandfather.

      I have read your brilliant essay which to a great extent summarizes my own conclusions after having followed the progress of science during more than six decades. My main source being a subscribtion on Scientific American since 1968 and the references it provides.

      Many years ago it occurred to me that the description of the development of our universe was also a description of an ever proceeding merging to larger and larger lumps, beginning with the most primordial constituents.

      From your essasy I quote two sentences: "When energy is in flux, stable structures tend to emerge in the otherwise chaotic flow by dissipating energy. In a similar way, galaxies and snowflakes form in the dynamic chaos of interstellar gas or atmospheric clouds."

      To me they reflect the same thinking that led me to inquire: Is there a mathematical law that describes the consequenses of this aggregation process? I took me many years of struggling thinking to finally one day, Heureka! The very simple equation d = в€› ВЅ a Г-- b. I refer to page 1 of my essay.

      You asked me to clarify what acts on the objects when they aggregate.

      In my thinking I tried to first treat the process theoretically.

      The objects have only one property in addition to their momentum: When they encounter, they stick together.

      Imagine the objects as burdock burrs. The hooks and their properties representing whatever physical law causing the "sticking together".

      It must be a piece of cake to simulate such a process with a computer. I have not found anyone interested in doing such a simulation. I don't possess the computational skill to do it. May be a simulation will prove my equation wrong or to have another composition.

      If the equation is proven correct the next step will be: Is it applicable to the real world?

      Then one has to consider the nature of the objects and the physical laws involved in the merging process. But probably the conclusion would be that regardless of the nature of the objects and of the kind of forces engaged in the aggregation the objects and lumps will behave according to d = в€› ВЅ a Г-- b.

      I wouldn't mind if someone could smash my thesis to pieces, because that would be a relief from the prospect that it is true with all its implications.

      If the mathematical description of this physical relationship is correct and it is applicable also to the cosmological reality, it certainly will give rise to changed aims and intentions related to the description of the development of our universe, because the interpretation of all observational data regarding the movements of the galaxies must be reassessed taking into account that almost all of the trillions of galaxies have gone through mergers, with the consequense that merged galaxies recede from each other without any need of an expanding universe.

      And as the concept of an expanding universe is based solely on observations made by Hubble and his successors on the assumption that the observed galaxies have not experienced any mergers (or if, this has been considered insignificant in the context), the outcome of such a reassessment could be that either our universe is not expanding at all, or expanding at a much lower rate than the current estimate, otherwise it would have been impossible for the observed galaxy mergers to take place.

      Dear Jan-Axel,

      FQXI Contests are first of all new ideas. You give new ideas, that will help us overcome the crisis of understanding in fundamental science through the creation of a new comprehensive picture of the world, uniform for physicists and lyrics filled with meanings of the "LifeWorld" (E.Husserl).

      In fundamental science, including cosmology, today there is a need for a broad competition of ideas, concepts, theories . My high appreciation. I invite you to read and evaluate my ideas

      Yours faithfully,

      Vladimir

        Dear Jan-Axel Nyman

        Your mathematical description makes something interesting.

        You tried to describe the accelerating expansion of universe by your mathematical problems.

        I advise that you should also use it for the Avogadro constant and molar volume.

        After reading studiously your article, I will post a comment more in detail on your essay.

        Ch.Bayarsailkan

          Dear Vladimir Rogozhin,

          Thank you for your comment.

          I have read your essay and I must admit that, for a simple minded man that I am, it was difficult to comprehend and to find the essence of your essay. I came so far that you are trying to show that there is a general crisis encompassing all the realms of science as far as it has proceeded up today. I can't agree with that. Science is a stepway process where all new findings and revaluations or rejections of earlier knowledge are conflicting, which to many can be apprehended as crisis. In that way I can agree with you that sience is marred by crisis, but that is the nature of science - an ever proceeding chain of crisis. With no crisis, no progress.

          When I try to evaluate scientific findings in the realm of physics I only accept deductions based on observations and experimental verification of mathematical predictions. All other pretentions I regard as speculations, however imaginative and interesting they are. But the more likely it seems that they could be observationally and experimentally verified I try to follow their progress.

          How does my essay and its headline relate to the theme of the contest?

          First, I can not imagine a simpler and more mindless mathematical expression than d = в€› ВЅ a Г-- b.

          Secondly if the physical relationship that this equation describes is correct and that it is applicable also in the cosmological reality, it certainly will give rise to changed aims and intentions related to the description of the development of our universe, because the interpretation of all observational data regarding the movements of the galaxies must be reassessed taking into account that almost all of the trillions of galaxies have gone through mergers, with the consequense that the galaxies recede from each other without any need of an expanding universe.

          And as the concept of an expanding universe is based solely on observations made by Hubble and his successors on the assumption that the observed galaxies have not experienced any mergers (or if, this has been considered insignificant in the context), the outcome of such a reassessment could be that either our universe is not expanding at all, or expanding at a much lower rate than the current estimate, otherwise it would have been impossible for the observed galaxy mergers to take place.

          You are welcome to prove me wrong.

          Kindest regards

          Jan-Axel Nyman

          Dear Bayarsaikhan Bayarsaikhan Choisuren,

          thank you for your comment. I am looking forward to your coming post.

          Kindest regards

          Jan-Axel Nyman

          20 days later

          Dear Jan-Axel.

          Interesting stuff. As an Astronomer (of sorts) I can say the 'peculiar motions' of celestial bodies as it's called are very complicated and all sorts of 'hand added' adjustments are needed to make things work in any basic gravity, but despite overwhelming floods of data it's still inadequate to have any real certainty, so there may well be somthing to your thesis!

          As a mathematician of similar skill level to yours, one with similar disdain for interpretations, and also indeed one with more than one profession, I've interestingly arrived at similar conclusions on accelerating expansion, indeed shown how cosmic redshift can arise perfectly well without it. The video is here if you're interested.

          But as I'm about to launch your essay out of the gravitational sink hole it seems to be stuck in I wonder if you may return the compliment by reading and scoring mine before wasting any more of the short time left!

          Well done.

          Peter

          Dear Sirs!

          Physics of Descartes, which existed prior to the physics of Newton returned as the New Cartesian Physic and promises to be a theory of everything. To tell you this good news I use «spam».

          New Cartesian Physic based on the identity of space and matter. It showed that the formula of mass-energy equivalence comes from the pressure of the Universe, the flow of force which on the corpuscle is equal to the product of Planck's constant to the speed of light.

          New Cartesian Physic has great potential for understanding the world. To show it, I ventured to give "materialistic explanations of the paranormal and supernatural" is the title of my essay.

          Visit my essay, you will find there the New Cartesian Physic and make a short entry: "I believe that space is a matter" I will answer you in return. Can put me 1.

          Sincerely,

          Dizhechko Boris

          Write a Reply...